Your subsequent post in the thread, more than 2 days after Pianodwarf's response, indicates that you were not resting your case prior to the >2-day break. If you were resting your case, then you had no reason to make another post.

It sure does, but pd himself pointed out that once the game is over by the rules, nothing that happens afterward changes that fact.

Quote

This is really disingenuous of you, Voter.

Not at all. I freely admit it's a technicality that I didn't want to get into. Try considering things from my point of view. I saw his error immediately, but did I mention it? No. I ignored it, continued the discussion, and even accepted his claim of a technical win (not that that matters, as he lost when he made the consecutive post, and moves after the flag drop aren't considered!). If he had continued, I wouldn't have brought up his technical loss. If he had just said he didn't want to continue, I wouldn't have brought up his technical loss. But when he gave his little loss is a loss is a loss lecture, well, he deserved what was coming to him.

I have the thermostat set at a tempreture I always keep it at. I leave for work and I work overnights, so everyone's asleep.

When I return home the house is 20 degrees cooler, with the thermostat set at that temperature. ie. 56 flipping degrees, in a not so well insulated house in southern Texas in July.

Me: I told you, not to adjust the thermostat.Him: I didn't.Me: Yes you did. It was 76 when I left.Him: You didn't see me adjust it, so therefore there's no way that you could know that I adjusted it, so therefore I did not adjust it.

FYI: there was no one else living in the house but us.

That reminds me of pd's argument on whether there were any suffering people in Job's day!

Whether or not I agree with simply stopping the discussion because of this petty two-day-limit, technically, as soon as the two-day limit was hit, you lost. As soon as that limit was hit, you lost via the rules you agreed to at the beginning and any subsequent 'breaks' are after-the-fact.

You failed to post within the limit, causing your loss. Only after the loss did Piano make his second-in-a-row post, thus is didn't matter that he had violated a rule, you violated a rule first. So, technically, you did break it.

Technically, I did not, as I could have simply been satisfied with my case. Everyone is just plain ignoring that point.

Quote

To be fair, however, I'm surprised that such a thing was held so strictly. I was always under the impression that debates (at least in this forum) were not for victors over losers, but for an examining of the information both sides bring to the table. The quality of said data not-withstanding, the debates should really be for the people who are still on the fence and may be following along, shouldn't they?

I agree, and I was even willing to concede the technicality in order to continue.

Try considering things from my point of view. I saw his error immediately, but did I mention it? No. I ignored it, continued the discussion, and even accepted his claim of a technical win (not that that matters, as he lost when he made the consecutive post, and moves after the flag drop aren't considered!).

Except you lost first. He posted after you lost, after 'the flag was dropped', and after your two-day-limit.You're just digging yourself deeper here.

Technically, I did not, as I could have simply been satisfied with my case. Everyone is just plain ignoring that point.

Except he offered a counter to you, so you must either state that you are satisfied (otherwise, how are we to know that you aren't just claiming this after the fact), thus forfeiting any chance to counter the points piano brought up in his reply, or you respond to his counter-points within the time limit.

You, instead, responded to his counter-points well after the time-limit was reached showing that you were not satisfied.

Regardless of that, even if we assume that you can claim that you were satisfied with the debate after the fact, you still have to concede to anything piano said in his last post, leaving him in the superior position, (as responses that are not responded to will be viewed as conceded) and thus victorious.

Logged

"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

To be fair, however, I'm surprised that such a thing was held so strictly. I was always under the impression that debates (at least in this forum) were not for victors over losers, but for an examining of the information both sides bring to the table. The quality of said data not-withstanding, the debates should really be for the people who are still on the fence and may be following along, shouldn't they?

Normally, I would agree with this, but there was resorting to namecalling and other things showing it was really no longer a debate anyways, Voter turned it into a mudslinging contest and PD wasn't going to play that game.

Your subsequent post in the thread, more than 2 days after Pianodwarf's response, indicates that you were not resting your case prior to the >2-day break. If you were resting your case, then you had no reason to make another post.

It sure does, but pd himself pointed out that once the game is over by the rules, nothing that happens afterward changes that fact.

I am not talking about the rules here. I am talking about whether you were resting your case. You have claimed that you were, as a way out of the 2-day-rule. Your actions show that this is a lie on your part.

What does it say about your position, that you now feel compelled to lie?

I am talking about whether you were resting your case. You have claimed that you were, as a way out of the 2-day-rule. Your actions show that this is a lie on your part.

Voter is saying that he might have been resting his case:

Quote

Technically, I did not, as I could have simply been satisfied with my case.

However, he's already admitted in post 50 that this wasn't true (my bold):

Quote

That's how it is in chess, which he's used to, so he incorrectly read it in here. We made no rules regarding minimum number of posts before the debate could be ended, or on notification that one was concluding his argument. Therefore, I could have not posted within the two days simply because I was done. Now, that's not truly the case. But, he said himself that reasons don't matter, only the rules, and technically I did not break a rule by not posting within two days.

So:

1. Voter admits that he wasn't finished.2. Therefore, he did break the two-day rule.

The possibility that he might have finished his argument is irrelevant, as he's conceded that that wasn't the case.

I have locked and archived the debate. I will leave this discussion thread open until it peters out or gets nasty. I'd rather see discussion about the debate than squabbling about time limits, but it's your time, use it how you like...

I see Voter is up to his behavior I think I previously pointed out, no time for substance, but loads and loads of time to engage people about meta criticism

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I see Voter is up to his behavior I think I previously pointed out, no time for substance, but loads and loads of time to engage people about meta criticism

Indeed, we see nothing defending his evident stance that might makes right which is what the whole book of Job is based on. Anything that is done by something strong, no matter how monstrous, is evidently okay with Voter.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

What did you think that the penalty would be for breaking the 2-day rule?

It doesn't matter, as technically, I didn't break it.

No, techincally, you did. It is an undeniable fact that you broke that rule. The only way you could possibly argue this would be by proving that you actually DID post within two days... But that would be impossible, because you didn't.

I see Voter is up to his behavior I think I previously pointed out, no time for substance, but loads and loads of time to engage people about meta criticism

Indeed, we see nothing defending his evident stance that might makes right which is what the whole book of Job is based on. Anything that is done by something strong, no matter how monstrous, is evidently okay with Voter.

It proved to me these "formal debates" are useless

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I'll have to agree. They give the theist some breathing room with only one opponent but the arguments are still garbage and you can't hold their feet to the fire on the important issues.

Like, I don't know, seperating the concept of "God" from "A Dragon in My Garage"

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

OK, whatever. I’ve been busy at work, so technical victory is yours, if that means something to you. Moving on…

and then went on with all that rubbish about "well I won actually". His arguments about the way the debate ended were childish and offensive to my intellect.

Quote

@ TruthSeeker: Sorry, but you're wrong. pd made unwarranted assumptions about the two-day rule. Moral of the story is, don't insist on strict application of the rules without analyzing your position under the rules first!

Therefore, I could have not posted within the two days simply because I was done. Now, that's not truly the case. But, he said himself that reasons don't matter, only the rules, and technically I did not break a rule by not posting within two days.

Ironically, I would have broken the rule if he would have just waited for me to post. In that case he could have claimed victory. But, he didn't wait, he broke the rules, the debate was over at that point, and a loss is a loss is a loss.

I saw his error immediately, but did I mention it? No. I ignored it, continued the discussion, and even accepted his claim of a technical win (not that that matters, as he lost when he made the consecutive post, and moves after the flag drop aren't considered!). If he had continued, I wouldn't have brought up his technical loss. If he had just said he didn't want to continue, I wouldn't have brought up his technical loss. But when he gave his little loss is a loss is a loss lecture, well, he deserved what was coming to him.

That is just so dumb and immature on so many levels. Does he think everybody is a moron?

That is just so dumb and immature on so many levels. Does he think everybody is a moron?

I think he does.

I had a ~2 page discussion with him regarding Logic and Debating... I admitted that I may not be too keen on the rules of Dabate... but due to my Programming and Electronics experience, I think I have a handle on Logic.

1) I found an atheist's forum! I've read some of the posts! Those deluded people, they need to be saved, to be brought back to the open arms of the Lord. A good dose of the Gospel will set them straight.

2) They accepted me into their den of sin. Good. There is hope for them, after all. This is exciting, I feel like Jesus walking through Hell. A little chit chat (or maybe not), and then

3) Pull out all the zingers. I've got so many! I will start threads on all of them, surely the overwhelming weight of the magnificence of Jesus will convince them. Additionally, I will interject holiness on all threads that touch upon all sinful things. This will set me at the right hand of God, I am sure, I will become famous for my conversions.

4) This may be more difficult than I thought. They truly are demons. They don't see and accept the Word that I am spreading for their own good. They fling arguments at me, not aimed at the heart or soul, but aimed at logic, knowledge and rules. What good is "evidence" anyway when their own idea of "evolutionism" is so sinfully wrong? I must study the Word and pray for guidance.

5) Ugh! They stab at me from all directions, like a swarm of filthy, nasty, bloodsucking, atheist leeches. They tell me that I don't answer all of their questions and responses to my 105 Standard Arguments in Favor of the Gospel, I can't possibly keep up with them. They TRULY ARE LEGION! I need an exorcist!

6) Fuck those assholes! Go to HELL you shitty atheists -- may you burn for eternity!

Wow. Voter hauled off and ran away from any reasonable discussion. I can't tell you how intensely shocked I am. I never would have seen this coming.......

And he wondered why I didn't bother to to go into a direct debate with him.

He just couldn't accept the sense on not having 8+ concurrent debate threads either.

Maybe create a new Debate Rule:

Quote

You can only issue one challenge at a time, until the challenge is refused, or the debate has ended with either victory or defeat. Forfiture may result in a time delay before you're able to issue another challenge. This is so you can have "enough time" to formulate your arguement against only one opponent instead of being distracted by another challenge.

This will, at least, prevent more than one person's time being wasted at the same time. Silly thiests, Imaginary Friends are for kids.